Shitnun's D3 Launch complaint thread even tho he no haz

Fido wrote:

Or something that just doesn't make sense from a cost-profit perspective.

ding-ding

Though they may have over-estimated gamers patience and reasoning.

Funny thing though....

When a company fucks up in the game industry, my twitter feed is usually a flood of articles and forum post links, and people raging...

however with D3.... all I've seen are blog posts of people laughing at the nerd ragers for making a big deal out of nothing.

Fido wrote:

Okay, so now we've established that you COULD play D3 on day 1, but now suddenly the problem is "that's not the point, you shouldn't have to hop on another server when the one designated to your locale isn't working because that server should work in the first place."

And we've now officially ground your argument down to whiny nitpicking. "Boo hoo I could've played if I wanted to but that involved clicking something other than "play now" before I could click "play now"."

Also I don't care if the image you linked to was factual(wasn't even Blizz, anyway, but a weaker competitor), speaking from a corporate point of view, they don't wanna piss their clients off but they all do it anyway. CLEARLY there's something going on beyond their control. Or something that just doesn't make sense from a cost-profit perspective.

But it's not out of their control at all. If it was, why have other companies such as Trion World's with RIFT, ArenaNet with Guild Wars, FunCom with Conan, all managed to have a stable launch? Their is proof to suggest that servers are not as expensive as companies make out and there is proof from other games that servers going down is not mandatory.

All much smaller launches FWIW

So much smaller that I'd wager their launch hour traffic is much less then D3's normal post launch traffic will be.

CptnShotgun wrote:

RoninHo'in wrote:

Why are video games different?

Because they are non consequential and entertainment... that's why.

Food, transportation, manufacturing... all crucial and critical industries.

Gaming? Could disappear off the face of the planet to little effect other the millions of nerd raging.

So you're basically using the "first world problems" argument? You really don't get it do you? As insignificant you may feel video games are, it's an industry and expecting the businesses within that industry to deliver what they promised , what you paid for, is not, and never will be, self-entitlement.

Look at industry standards, then. Let's compare cars to video games.

A video game isn't expected to work day 1. You want it to, the company wants it to, millions of day 1 buyers want it to. But it doesn't happen. It works intermittently (it works fine, but let's just pretend it completely failed to launch day 1). That sucks. But hey, you're fine on Day 2. It's kind of implicitly understood by now that servers suck on day 1 for any game. You buy a game fully knowing that. That's why I usually buy games a bit later. Lots of others do that, as evidenced by the tons of people who regularly wait to buy after the first week.

A car is expected to work day 1, but that's because that's the whole point of getting a new car. It's expected to be mildly safe, but everyone knows that if you crash it head on into a tractor trailer at 60mph, you're not going to walk away. That's implicitly understood. Your car's primary selling point can be safety but a car is inherently unsafe at high speeds. You can't compare it running on day 1 because that's completely dissimilar, but there are ways in which every product on earth compares - there are potential failures and expected failures everywhere.

RoninHo'in wrote:

All much smaller launches FWIW

So much smaller that I'd wager their launch hour traffic is much less then D3's normal post launch traffic will be.

Exactly. Not to forget that D3 shattered records, so there were literally several million people trying to play. If you're comparing that to a launch of a normal game where 800,000 people or so are trying to play... you're not exactly in the same territory here. That kind of server infrastructure simply cannot even resemble what it takes for a normal launch. You saw it on CoD as well... even after MW3 was released there were still more people on Black Ops than there were on BF3. You can't tell me that all companies experience the same kind of server strain.

Fido wrote:

CptnShotgun wrote:

So you're basically using the "first world problems" argument? You really don't get it do you? As insignificant you may feel video games are, it's an industry and expecting the businesses within that industry to deliver what they promised , what you paid for, is not, and never will be, self-entitlement.

Look at industry standards, then. Let's compare cars to video games.

A video game isn't expected to work day 1. You want it to, the company wants it to, millions of day 1 buyers want it to. But it doesn't happen. It works intermittently (it works fine, but let's just pretend it completely failed to launch day 1). That sucks. But hey, you're fine on Day 2. It's kind of implicitly understood by now that servers suck on day 1 for any game. You buy a game fully knowing that. That's why I usually buy games a bit later. Lots of others do that, as evidenced by the tons of people who regularly wait to buy after the first week.

A car is expected to work day 1, but that's because that's the whole point of getting a new car. It's expected to be mildly safe, but everyone knows that if you crash it head on into a tractor trailer at 60mph, you're not going to walk away. That's implicitly understood. Your car's primary selling point can be safety but a car is inherently unsafe at high speeds. You can't compare it running on day 1 because that's completely dissimilar, but there are ways in which every product on earth compares - there are potential failures and expected failures everywhere.

When I buy a game, I expect it to play. Games ARE expected to work day one because that's what you pay for, the ability to play the product when and where you wish, you pay for that service and it is the company's job to provide that service, as that is what you pay for, you're not paying for the shiny box.

RoninHo'in wrote:

All much smaller launches FWIW

So much smaller that I'd wager their launch hour traffic is much less then D3's normal post launch traffic will be.

Smaller company = Smaller revenue stream

The amount of revenue a company makes is relative to its size, so it's a fair comparison. To use a comparison on an equal scope, when EA launched SWTOR the servers didn't go down because they employed smart business tactics to ensure they stayed up. It was one of the only things EA did right.

It's only a fair comparison if you assume that every kind of function involved is a simple linear one. Which it isn't - even supply and demand and cost and so on can contain exponential functions. Who's to say server cost isn't exponential? You can't just fart new servers into existence. Who says they even NEED new servers? Maybe a rewrite of the entire existing structure needs to be done for them to even add more servers? There's just too many unknowns to compare companies other than by size. Nothing is proportional in the business world.

CptnShotgun wrote:

When I buy a game, I expect it to play.

2 things

#1: You DIDN'T buy it... so again, why do you give a fuq?

#2: It DOES play... which you would know if you bought it.

Also, FWIW: They did stress test... but they didn't have 2+ million testers to actually test real world launch hour traffic would actually do. This is an inherent problem with testing. You test what you can but you can NEVER cover and unearth every issue that WILL come up when it's released to the mass public.

Which is why my programming comment earlier was relevant BTW... You'd know, understand, and respect the difficulties entailed if you did.

Given the sheer volume they faced, they pulled off a relatively smooth launch all things considered, AND managed to fix the issues in a timely manner at that.

Online games have downtime... this is an invariable fact.

Reading the Cracked article now. Not that I encourage citing Cracked since they're a comedy website.

1) He says himself it's understandable that there aren't enough servers.
2) He constantly refers to the game as being primarily single player. Which I'd just like to make a counterpoint to: both Diablo 2 and Diablo 3 were specifically designed to be impossible to complete on your own. Any singleplayer character in Diablo 2 was INCAPABLE of making it through Hell difficulty. I had to explain this to my mother when she got that far. There are a good dozen items that simply aren't available in single player ENTIRELY. In D3, they were very specific as well: there's Hell, and then one above that, which is designed to be impossible to do alone. So, no, it's not a single player game.

Fido wrote:

2) He constantly refers to the game as being primarily single player. Which I'd just like to make a counterpoint to: both Diablo 2 and Diablo 3 were specifically designed to be impossible to complete on your own. Any singleplayer character in Diablo 2 was INCAPABLE of making it through Hell difficulty. I had to explain this to my mother when she got that far. There are a good dozen items that simply aren't available in single player ENTIRELY. In D3, they were very specific as well: there's Hell, and then one above that, which is designed to be impossible to do alone. So, no, it's not a single player game.

Reminds me of BF. Has single-player elements, but it's a multiplayer game.

Yeah, but no. The SP on BF3 is removed from the MP. In D3, it's all multiplayer and stored on their servers. You just have the option to play private games.

That option is also default, but that doesn't make it any less of an "MP/Online" game....

You only start in a private game if you choose to. There's an option to start public, join public, or start private.

I miss Diablo 2's server browser though.

And now.... I'm gonna get on and play.

Anyone up for it?

Fido#1103 I think is my name.

I'm at work shirking my dutes to entertain myself with this nonsense...

I'll be on later and hit you up with a FR.

Oh, I toyed with my gfx settings, turning down the resolution (I raised it to my Laptop's actual resolution) a little bit made a vast improvement in playability.

I'm amazed at how well Blizz games downscale.

You know what I mean.

Skreshavik wrote:

You know what I mean.

Right, nobody (or almost nobody) buys it for the SP... they buy it for the MP and the SP is just kinda there....

So when BF servers go down for maintenance, the game is effectively dead because you're not going to load up SP to get your fix.

Fido wrote:

2) He constantly refers to the game as being primarily single player. Which I'd just like to make a counterpoint to: both Diablo 2 and Diablo 3 were specifically designed to be impossible to complete on your own. Any singleplayer character in Diablo 2 was INCAPABLE of making it through Hell difficulty.

RoninHo'in wrote:

Also, FWIW: They did stress test... but they didn't have 2+ million testers to actually test real world launch hour traffic would actually do. This is an inherent problem with testing. You test what you can but you can NEVER cover and unearth every issue that WILL come up when it's released to the mass public.

Which is why my programming comment earlier was relevant BTW... You'd know, understand, and respect the difficulties entailed if you did.

Given the sheer volume they faced, they pulled off a relatively smooth launch all things considered, AND managed to fix the issues in a timely manner at that.

Online games have downtime... this is an invariable fact.

In an industry that has advanced so much in such a short span of time, I refuse to believe that servers crashing at launch is an unfixable issue, in fact, Blizzard admit they "didn't prepare enough": http://www.ingame.msnbc.msn.com/technology/ingame/blizzard-apologizes-diablo-disaster-778072

You see crashes as something the consumer shouldn't complain about because they are inevitable, I see them as something the consumer has a right to complain about whether they are inevitable or not. We'll just have to agree to disagree as I'm sure we both feel like we're banging our head against a brick wall. Call this a victory if you so wish, but I honestly don't see me stepping out of an argument due to it achieving no purpose as a "victory".

Of course they apologized... their PR department aren't idiots.

They'd be pretty foolish to take my stance which would have resulted in more backlash much like your own.

If you feel games arent supposed to work day 1 without issues then enjoy getting bummed every single time a game is released, I stopped taking in the poop chute after BF3, I refuse to buy anything ever again from DICE/EA, as Honin said its an entertainment thing so no point in wasting money on shit that is buggy or doesnt work properly, Im sure my $60 bucks wont be missed because there is an army of lemmings willing to drop a 60 on a turd

1 thing tho...

<--- not bummed out and thoroughly enjoying (working, functional, and so far non-buggy) game (that by all rights shouldn't work on my non-gaming laptop... but does anyways cause of great downscaling)

RoninHo'in wrote:

1 thing tho...

<--- not bummed out and thoroughly enjoying game

Cool, Blizz appreciates your money

And I in turn got a product I consider my money's worth.

funny how things work out that way sometimes.

CptnShotgun wrote:

Fido wrote:

2) He constantly refers to the game as being primarily single player. Which I'd just like to make a counterpoint to: both Diablo 2 and Diablo 3 were specifically designed to be impossible to complete on your own. Any singleplayer character in Diablo 2 was INCAPABLE of making it through Hell difficulty.

Right, clearly you never played D2. That's in multiplayer. Just because they're doing it alone doesn't mean it's SP. Several of the items she's using aren't even AVAILABLE in SP (the ladder-only runewords), and the others can't be gotten on your own without cheating. She has a torch and anni, which are done through uber trist and Dclone. That's quite a bit more difficult than Chaos - and pretty much impossible with a bowzon.